Obama and Facebook

I'm concerned about a few things with this upcoming election. First I want to start with Facebook and it's IPO. I'm no stock wizard but I had a few questions about the pricing of Facebook. 100 billion just seemed a little steep/insane to me. In my opinion the only people who invested in Facebook are those who misunderstand what Facebook is and why it has gained so many users.

Take a peek at this article form 2005. In 2005 it was all about Myspace and how it would be able to rule the Internet for the foreseeable future. But this article misses what is probably the most important aspect of any social networking site --it's FREE.

A few things have changed since Myspace was on top. The "newness" of Myspace has worn off. Myspace was good for computer users; remember smart phones were considerably less advanced in 2005, so the mobile aspect was not as much a driving force. Myspace was not yet sold, so it was more user oriented.

The popularity of Facebook began to increase greatly after Myspace was purchased by Newscorp. The reason for this, I believe, is that once Myspace became nothing but a never-ending bulletin board of Flash animations and advertisements; people quickly lost interest in it. It was too cluttered. Not to mention a bandwidth hog. The trend as I see it is to move to the next social network once the current one becomes too bloated and self interested. Myspace was catering too advertisers and not its users. Myspace users naturally moved over to Facebook. It offered similar features and wasn't so cluttered. Keep in mind that Facebook and Myspace are both free services. The ability of either site to earn money can only be based on advertising.

Facebook has more things working against it than it does working for it. Let me list the issues facing Facebook. History has shown, at least to me, that advertising can hurt social networking membership numbers. Facebook's users are increasingly mobile. How can you advertise to mobile users with real estate so precious on tiny little screens? Google's social networking site Google+ is waiting to snap up Facebook users as they flee either advertisements or usage fees. Not to mention Google's Android operating system will undoubtedly ship with Google+ pre-installed.

Now let's tie Obama into all this. Obama has been wrong on everything he's said about the economy. When Facebook was valued at around 100 billion, shortly after the IPO a sell-off began. Then an investigation was launched into the pricing methodology by Morgan Stanley. People were angry because they feel they were lied to about their investment.

The only people who will vote for Obama now are those who don't understand basic economics, or actually believe that it's so complicated that they can't understand it. Obama is hedging his bets on the hope that Americans as a whole are so misinformed about the economy that they will believe the media hype about the economy and elect him again. The problem for Obama is that the "sell-off" of the US economy has already begun and is happening now in the form of job losses. Unemployment keeps going up. Businesses are not investing in workers because they don't have enough demand for their products.

On the upside there was a poll that showed that many people were skeptical about the Facebook stock prices.

Half of Americans think Facebook is a passing fad, according to the results of a new Associated Press-CNBC poll. And, in the run-up to the social network's initial public offering of stock, half of Americans also say the social network's expected asking price is too high.

Just a third of those surveyed think the company's expected value is appropriate, 50 per cent say it is too high. Those who invest in the stock market are more likely to see Facebook as overvalued, 58 per cent said so. About 3 in 10 investors say the expected value of shares is fair.

Hopefully people will be equally skeptical about Obama's economic claims. After all there is nothing to historically back them up. I hope that tax payers are as angry with the economic situation as investors were with the Facebook deal.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Of course I don't know the future, but I have a hunch about something. Obama is most likely going to loose with Joe Biden as his running mate. Biden is good for nothing but distracting attention away from Obama and issues that might harm him politically. Biden is not widely seen as a decision maker on any substantive level.

I believe that at the last minute, perhaps even after the Democratic Convention, Hillary Clinton will be selected as Obama's VP choice. I know that selecting a VP choice that late would go against tradition, but this is Obama we're talking about here. What respect has Obama shown for tradition so far? Obama's goal is to make new traditions not uphold old traditions.

I know other's have said this as well, but I think it might actually be a possibility here. Hillary could bring enough swing voters over to keep Obama in the White House.

Hillary could be a double edged sword. Hillary was looked upon as one of the chief decision makers during president Bill Clinton's time in office. She has a great advantage as well; she is constantly in the news, but has avoided most criticism so far. She will do better to stay out of the news and just be on the ticket maintaining whatever polling numbers she has now.

What is the likelihood of this? Who knows? I just don't think that Obama is going to have enough steam to overcome himself.

When it comes to Democrats the ends justify the means. As Bill Clinton said, "Loyalty doesn't exist in politics."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Sens. Schumer and Bob Casey are determined to push legislation to go after an individual citizen, or ex-citizen in this case. Not only will it go after someone who has already done something legally, it will attempt to retroactively make illegal what was already done.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a status update for Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin: Stop attempting to dodge your taxes by renouncing your U.S. citizenship or never come to back to the U.S. again.

At a news conference this morning, Sens. Schumer and Bob Casey, D-Pa., will unveil the “Ex-PATRIOT” – “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy” – Act to respond directly to Saverin’s move, which they dub a “scheme” that would “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”

The plan would bar individuals like Saverin from ever reentering the United States again.

This proposition alone is reason enough for Schumer and Casey to be voted out of office. Anyone who thinks that it's the job of The United States Senate to target an individual obviously has no historical knowledge of the founding of this country.

Schumer and Casey represent a larger problem here. Why is it that the Facebook co-founder Saverin is a target? I thought someone like Saverin would be an example of what others could do if they worked hard and became successful. What right does the US government have to tell Saverin where he should live based on how much wealth he's acquired.

So the message here is; get rich and pay up. If you don't pay up, we'll criminalize your past actions and fine you. It also states; if you are a wealthy entrepreneur stay away from the US because we don't want you here, we just want your money in the form of taxes, economic benefit be damned.

I think it's a safe bet to say that Saverin will put his money to better use than the US government would.

Saverin responded to this attack today.

Saverin, though, staunchly defended himself in a written statement Thursday. In a reference to the so-called "exit tax" those who renounce their citizenship pay, he said "I am obligated to and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes to the United States government."

He added: "I have paid and will continue to pay any taxes due on everything I earned while a U.S. citizen. It is unfortunate that my personal choice has led to a public debate, based not on the facts, but entirely on speculation and misinformation."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I don't know how many of you have recently visited www.barakobama.com/life-of-julia, the Obama Biden site, but it just keeps getting more and more bizarre. There is this strange "Life of Julia" add attempting to show how women are going to benefit from Obama's policies. I took snap shots of each part of the story to preserve it in all it's weirdness.

Obama's policies "help over her lifetime" and Mitt Romney's policies would "change her story". This implies that Mitt Romney would not help over her lifetime. A better question would be; should the president be doing anything to help one particular group of people? Pay attention to the usage of the word could.

This implies that if your kids don't enroll in the head start program they will not be ready to learn and succeed.

How does freezing spending equal cutting spending? Romney/Ryan are for extending existing tax rates. That is not a cut.

We must assume that Julia's parents are in an income bracket that qualifies her for a Pell Grant.

Health insurance plans, before Obama Care, required that children be covered until age 22 provided they were still in school. She's covered until 26 years of age under Obama Care, but that doesn't even apply in this example.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has to do with an increase in the statue of limitations when challenging an employer in court for pay discrimination. This example also assumes a little too much to be realistic. Julia is going to sue her employer while still in college over equal pay dispute?

Where is the proof that Ryan or Romney want to increase student loan interest? Who would propose that in an election year?

This is just silly. So women everywhere have been scared about their health up until the passage of Obama Care? Really?

All of these benefits are available now under Medicaid. As a matter of fact many women would quit their jobs to apply for Medicaid and have the government subsidize the cost of child birth. Coverage is not a problem if people are gaming the current system because of its great level of coverage.

Funding is not what makes schools improve. If any country in the world proves that, it's the U.S.

Again these types of programs are already in existence. There is nothing new here.

Medicare will end as we know it anyway because it's not sustainable.

Correct Julia's benefits could be cut by 40%, but she would be able to invest that 40% how she sees fit. This could allow for a much greater return on investment when compared to Social Security.

That's right ladies, you would get nowhere without Obama!

From this I must conclude that Obama doesn't care about men. Above is a list of all of the groups the administration considered important enough, but not men.

What amazes me is the extent to which leftists will inflate themselves. If you were to actually buy into the Julia story; you would have to believe that Julia owes the majority of good things in her life to Obama and his policies. This is just so bizarre.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

This issue hits home for me. I won't say how, but I currently have a ridiculous amount of student loan debt. I never really considered it a tax, but because of the Obama Health Care law all student loans are now offered only through the government. GSEs now manage all student loan debt (unless the debt accrued before the change).

These are Obama's remarks from a Rolling Stone Magazine interview published on September 28, 2010.

We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before.

So, the profit that was going to "banks and middlemen" is now going to the government in the form of interest? Sounds like a tax to me. The government has monopolized the student loan industry. Because the government is a single entity it can offer loans at extremely low rates, while in the aggregate the interest earned, even from those low rates, is massive. Politicians can now use student loan interest rates as a political tool just as they do with other taxes.

Here's where things get creepy.

America's student debt has reached $1tn, and interest on college loan repayments is scheduled to double on 1 July unless Congress acts.

America's total student debt burden last week topped $1tn - more than the total of the entire US credit card debt - and it shows no sign of easing.

The government now controls the largest amount of unsecured debt in the entire country. Perhaps this is why Obama is so excited about college loans. In Obama's first State of The Union Address he encouraged everyone to devote on year of their life to higher education. The government controlled student loan system has nothing to do with people receiving an education, it has to do with them becoming a new cash cow for the government. Now the government can gain interest on the largest unsecured debt in the entire U.S. economy.

When you consider that jobs are still being lost faster than they are being created college isn't much of a help.

April jobs report: Hiring slows, unemployment falls

Hiring slowed in April and workers dropped out of the labor force in droves -- not a good sign for the job market going forward.

The economy added just 115,000 jobs in the month, the Labor Department reported Friday, down from March when employers created 154,000 jobs.
Obama battles job crisis

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.1% as 342,000 workers dropped out of the labor force. At 63.6%, the portion of the working-age population participating in the job market is now at its lowest level since 1981.

115,000 jobs were created April, but 342,000 workers dropped out of the labor force. CNN has now been forced to report that the unemployment numbers the government uses --are in no way representative of the number of people without jobs!

The current unemployment figures are based on the number of people looking for jobs vs. the number of available jobs. If the number of people looking for jobs decreases while the number of available jobs remains stagnant unemployment goes down. This is a nonsensical attempt at calculating unemployment.

If only 63.6% of the working-age population are employed real unemployment (people without jobs) would be 36.4%; that's a number no college graduate with huge student loan debt want to hear.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!